SynthesisPloS one2025
Efficacy and safety of Tuina (Chinese Therapeutic Massage) for chronic ankle instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mechanosensitive Ion Channels and Neuroplasticity in Tuina Therapy: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Implications.Neural plasticity · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe efficacy of tuina in treating chronic ankle instability (CAI) arouses controversy. Therefore, the present study adopted the meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tuina in treating CAI and aims to provide high-quality evidence for this promising treatment.
methodsWe searched eight databases from inception to April 1st, 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of tuina treatment for CAI, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, and VIP Chinese Science and Technique Journals database. Information was independently extracted and bias risks were evaluated by two researchers. To assess the quality of the studies, we utilized Cochrane Collaboration's tool and the GRADE evaluation system. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan5.4 software.
resultsThirteen RCTs involving 984 patients were included in this study. The overall methodological quality of the studies was low. The meta-analysis revealed the followings: (1) the clinical effective rate was higher in the treatment group compared to the control group (OR = 6.51, 95% CI [3.76, 11.28]); (2) the treatment group performed better in reducing the Visual Analogue Scale score (MD = -1.59, 95% CI [-2.59, -0.59]); (3) the Baird-Jackson Ankle Score was superior in the treatment group (MD = 8.20, 95% CI [6.37, 10.04]); (4) the improvement in the AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Scale was greater in the treatment group (MD = 14.52, 95% CI [9.81, 19.23]). All differences were statistically significant. Regarding adverse events, there were no significant differences in incidence rates between the groups.
conclusionsTuina is an effective and safe treatment option for CAI, the conclusions are limited by the methodological quality of the included trials. Further high-quality research is needed to confirm these findings and guide clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.